Timing question on redirect

[moodswing5537 1,415]

1.) I use my Raider 2 to shoot the front of a CR90 A that has 1 front shield , 2 left and 1 right shield. 

2.) I shoot with my Raider 2 that has Heavy Ion E. , targeting front hull zone.

2.) I roll hit/hit/crit. I declare 3 dmg to front hull zone. 

3.) Defender declares using a redirect.

4.) I declare crit effect of HIE. to strip 1 shield from front, left, and right hull zone.

5.) Damage is applied.

I have never heard this stated, and is usually just rolled over at tourneys, but does the defender have to declare which side and how much dmg they are redirecting in step 3 above? Most folks just say redirect, wait for the crit, look at where dmg is going and say what side and how much after they lose the shields, but that seems wrong. 

[svelok 6,487]

9 minutes ago, moodswing5537 said:

does the defender have to declare which side and how much dmg they are redirecting in step 3 above?

Side, yes; amount, no. (This is normally relevant mostly when double-arced by HIEs, which exhaust; or against APTs, which could flip a card that drains your shields; which is why people aren't generally in the habit.)

From the RRG:

Quote

Defense tokens can be spent by the defender during the “Spend Defense Tokens” step of an attack to produce the effects described below:

• Redirect: The defender chooses one of its hull zones adjacent to the defending hull zone. When the defender suffers damage from this attack, it may suffer any amount of damage on the chosen zone’s shields (up to the shields remaining on that zone) before it must suffer the remaining damage on the defending hull zone. 

 

[moodswing5537 1,415]

Cool, thanks. Just needed to get that spoken out loud so I can chew on it, but that makes sense. 

[EbonHawk 1,244]

@Drasnighta will tell me if I'm wrong..

But i believe I read somewhere, HIEs have their damage applied first before tokens are spent..

But ACMs apply themselves after, when tokens have been spent... So if the defender redirected his shields away, ACMs would then proc directly onto the hull

[Ginkapo 9,321]

17 minutes ago, EbonHawk said:

@Drasnighta will tell me if I'm wrong..

But i believe I read somewhere, HIEs have their damage applied first before tokens are spent..

But ACMs apply themselves after, when tokens have been spent... So if the defender redirected his shields away, ACMs would then proc directly onto the hull

You are partially wrong. 

Damage is calculated.

Defense tokens are declared including hull zone for redirect. Evades and scatter resolve immediately.

Crit effect is declared.

Damage resolved with crit effects applying immediately, except the standard and XX9 have in built delays as they wait and see if there are damage cards. 

Edited July 24, 2018 by Ginkapo

[EbonHawk 1,244]

6 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

You are partially wrong. 

Damage is calculated.

Defense tokens are declared including hull zone for redirect. Evades and scatter resolve immediately.

Crit effect is declared.

Damage resolved with crit effects applying immediately, except the standard and XX9 have in built delays as they wait and see if there are damage cards. 

Thank you, this is what I was trying to say but worded much better! And glad I've been playing correctly aha

 

[Drasnighta 26,832]

It’s Wrong.

The timing for both is identical.

 

Defense tokens are declared and spent during that step. This would include nominating a redirect zone.

Then you get to the damage step.

ONLY THEN a critical is declared and resolved. 

Both ACM and HIE trigger here. They would immediately be resolved. 

You haven’t even calculated damage yet.  The only thing you have looked st the dice for us to determine if an appropriate colour Crit symbol is showing.

 

Now the only difference between those critical is the wording of “Damage” (ACM) and “Reduces Shields” (HIE).  In the fact that damage reduces shields of shields are there, but also does hull damage if there are non shields—- whereas reduces shields does nothing if there are no shields.

 

ONLY AFTER that is resolved donyou tally up the damage points on the dice.  Modified by brace or so.

The defender assigns them one at a time.

They go either to the target zone or the nominated redirect zone —- point by point—. You never have to declare how many at once are going where.  It’s point by point.

[EbonHawk 1,244]

So me and @PodRacer play, i roll acm and 6 damage for ex, pod braces and redirects, then applies the Acms and the damage on the dice. That's right?

Because I use both Acms and HIEs regularly, hope I've been doing so legally lol

Edited July 24, 2018 by EbonHawk

[Drasnighta 26,832]

37 minutes ago, EbonHawk said:

So me and @PodRacer play, i roll acm and 6 damage for ex, pod braces and redirects, then applies the Acms and the damage on the dice. That's right?

Because I use both Acms and HIEs regularly, hope I've been doing so legally lol

We assume the following:

You target the front zone.

a mix of 6 hit/Crit symbols on black dice have been rolled.

 

Defender chooses Brace and Redirect, nominating left zone.  They also declare contain so you can’t choose the default - like you would anyway, but for the sake of completeness ?

 

You then get to the damage step.

You do it like this, in order, no short cutting: 

 

DECLARE AND RESOLVE CRITICAL

Straight away you declare ACM and deal the damage to left and right hull zones.  If contain was not used you could instead declare “the first damage card would be face up”.

 

CALCULATE DAMAGE

only now do you transfer hit/Crit symbols into damage points, counting them up.  You count 6. As the defender declared brace, that is halved to 3.  The symbols do not matter the moment you totalled them.

 

APPLY DAMAGE

The defender does the damage to his ship point by point, one point at a time. Either the target front zone, or the redirect zone while it has shields.  If it is applied to shields, the shield goes down by one, if it is applied to hull, a damage card is dealt.

That’s it.

there are situations where one would want to redirect to a zone without shields - maintaining shields on a target zone - typically this is because you expect something like a follow up xx9 attack on that zone.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by Drasnighta

[Ginkapo 9,321]

21 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

 

there are situations where one would want to redirect to a zone without shields - maintaining shields on a target zone - typically this is because you expect something like a follow up xx9 attack on that zone.

 

 

Are you suggesting that you are allowed to redirect to a zone without shields? or just that sometimes you want to but cant?

Edited July 24, 2018 by Ginkapo

[Drasnighta 26,832]

Just now, Ginkapo said:

Are you suggesting that you are allowed to redirect to a zone without shields? or just that sometimes you want to but cant?

You totally can normally.

There is a Crit that soecifically stops you. Capacitor Failure, I believe.

[Ginkapo 9,321]

1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

You totally can normally.

There is a Crit that soecifically stops you. Capacitor Failure, I believe.

Capacitor Failure is: “If a hull zone has no remaining shields, you cannot recover shields in it nor move shields to it. If that hull zone is defending, you cannot spend [Redirect] tokens.”

RRG page 4, "Redirect: The defender chooses one of its hull zones adjacent to the defending hull zone. When the defender suffers damage from this attack, it may suffer any amount of damage on the chosen zones shields (up to the shields remaining on that zone) before it must suffer the remaining damage on the defeding hull zone."

So if I understand you correctly, I think you may be mistaken on this one. You cant redirect damage to an adjacent hull zone that does not have any shields left.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

Yes.  I am mistaken and stand corrected.

 

For the life of me though, I now can’t think of what I was thinking that let me believe so...

Might have been a different game system in my sleep deprived and addled head, perhaps.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Drasnighta

[Ginkapo 9,321]

4 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Yes.  I am mistaken and stand corrected.

 

For the life of me though, I now can’t think of what I was thinking that let me believe so...

Might have been a different game system in my sleep deprived and addled head, perhaps.

The only reason I know is I have tried to do it multiple times in the past. It would be so useful sometimes.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

Quite unforgivable for me to be mistaken on this one, too.

Copious apologies.  Edited above.

[Ginkapo 9,321]

6 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Quite unforgivable for me to be mistaken on this one, too.

Copious apologies.  Edited above.

No need for apologies, everyone is allowed to make mistakes, you see us right so often that you cannot apologise for one error.

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

Quite unforgivable for me to be mistaken on this one, too.

Copious apologies.  Edited above.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

51 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

No need for apologies, everyone is allowed to make mistakes, you see us right so often that you cannot apologise for one error.

Thank you.

I do stand by my belief that there is fewer things nobler, and regrettably rarer these days, than willingly admitting when you are wrong. ?

[EbonHawk 1,244]

Just now, Drasnighta said:

Thank you.

I do stand by my belief that there is fewer things nobler, and regrettably rarer these days, than willingly admitting when you are wrong. ?

1000%

[TheEasternKing 607]

Is it wrong?

have we all just been making an assumption like we all did with Intel Officer for many waves?

It does not say "if there are no shields this token has no effect."

it does say "you must suffer any remaining damage on the defending hull zone."

The point I am making here is it specifically says you may redirect any amount of damage, which is first removed from shields, then applied to hull if there are no shields remaining. and lets be honest suffering damage cards while you still have shields remaining is counter intuitive, something you normally want to avoid.

Evade specifically states when it has no effect, redirect does not say redirect onto shields, it just says redirect and any amount of damage, you could redirect the entire attack damage onto an adjacent hull zone with the token, leaving the attacked zone full shields, and I can only think of the Rebel Ace who gets to reroll if attacking a zone without shields as a reason for wanting to take damage cards and not lose shields.

[Astrodar 594]

6 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

Is it wrong?

have we all just been making an assumption like we all did with Intel Officer for many waves?

It does not say "if there are no shields this token has no effect."

it does say "you must suffer any remaining damage on the defending hull zone."

The point I am making here is it specifically says you may redirect any amount of damage, which is first removed from shields, then applied to hull if there are no shields remaining. and lets be honest suffering damage cards while you still have shields remaining is counter intuitive, something you normally want to avoid.

Evade specifically states when it has no effect, redirect does not say redirect onto shields, it just says redirect and any amount of damage, you could redirect the entire attack damage onto an adjacent hull zone with the token, leaving the attacked zone full shields, and I can only think of the Rebel Ace who gets to reroll if attacking a zone without shields as a reason for wanting to take damage cards and not lose shields.

From the RRG section on Redirect:

“When the defender suffers damage from this attack, it may suffer any amount of damage on the chosen zone’s shields (up to the shields remaining on that zone) before it must suffer the remaining damage on the defending hull zone.”

 

It specifies a limit of the amount of damage that can be moved, which prevents you from taking hull damage on that side. 

[TheEasternKing 607]

No that is not what it is saying at all.

How can it possibly be telling you there is a limit on what can be moved which prevents you taking hull damage?

Redirect says : " The defender chooses one of its hull zones adjacent to the defending hull zone, when the defender suffers damage from this attack, it MAY suffer any amount of damage on the chosen zones shields (up to the shields remaining on that zone) before it MUST suffer the remaining damage on the defending hull zone.

People rarely redirect more damage than they have shields on the adjacent hull zone, but that is a limitation we have applied, it is not applied by the wording of the rules text, say you take 5 damage, you can redirect 5 damage, it does not limit anywhere the amount that can be redirected, only X17s limit how much can be redirected.

Also the wording is telling you shields are removed first, before damage is applied the the hull, not shields must be there for redirect to work.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2018 by TheEasternKing

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

1 hour ago, TheEasternKing said:

How can it possibly be telling you there is a limit on what can be moved which prevents you taking hull damage?

I mean... the words are right there.  He even bolded it.

1 hour ago, Astrodar said:

“When the defender suffers damage from this attack, it may suffer any amount of damage on the chosen zone’s shields (up to the shields remaining on that zone) before it must suffer the remaining damage on the defending hull zone.”

 

[ovinomanc3r 4,437]

14 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Yes.  I am mistaken and stand corrected.

 

For the life of me though, I now can’t think of what I was thinking that let me believe so...

Might have been a different game system in my sleep deprived and addled head, perhaps.

Maybe the FAQ, where it is said that you can spend defense tokens for no effect at all. It is not the same but it allows confusion. I dunno.

16 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

No that is not what it is saying at all.

How can it possibly be telling you there is a limit on what can be moved which prevents you taking hull damage?

Redirect says : " The defender chooses one of its hull zones adjacent to the defending hull zone, when the defender suffers damage from this attack, it MAY suffer any amount of damage on the chosen zones shields (up to the shields remaining on that zone) before it MUST suffer the remaining damage on the defending hull zone.

People rarely redirect more damage than they have shields on the adjacent hull zone, but that is a limitation we have applied, it is not applied by the wording of the rules text, say you take 5 damage, you can redirect 5 damage, it does not limit anywhere the amount that can be redirected, only X17s limit how much can be redirected.

Also the wording is telling you shields are removed first, before damage is applied the the hull, not shields must be there for redirect to work.

 

 

Not sure I understand you.

You may still redirect. Do you have any shield left on the hull you redirected to? No? Then that hull cannot take more damage and the remaining damage (basically all the damage) must be applied on the defending hull zone.

[ovinomanc3r 4,437]

1 minute ago, Ardaedhel said:

I mean... the words are right there.  He even bolded it.

 

maybe we should also...

26 minutes ago, Astrodar said:

“When the defender suffers damage from this attack, it may suffer any amount of damage on the chosen zone’s shields (up to the shields remaining on that zone) before it must suffer the remaining damage on the defending hull zone.”

defending hull zone is not the hull you redirected to